Twenty-Two State AGs to Supreme Court: Decide Trump’s Immunity Question Before Prosecution

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 26: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the press durin
Alex Wong/Getty

WASHINGTON, DC – Twenty-two state attorneys general requested the Supreme Court halt Special Counsel Jack Smith’s rush to prosecute former President Donald Trump for allegedly conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election until the Court rules on whether the trial is permitted by the Constitution.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R-AL) led a 22-state amicus brief to the Court requesting a stay on Smith’s prosecution, arguing Smith’s sudden push to prosecute the President before the 2024 election “has invited public speculation that this case has an improper purpose—to influence the 2024 election.”

A stay until the Court rules on the question of Trump’s presidential immunity would help restore the integrity of the justice system in the eyes of the American public, the brief’s authors assert.

Trump recently filed an application to the Court to stay the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that presidents are not immune to prosecution for alleged crimes from when they were in office.

Marshall and his coauthors support Trump’s application, insisting the weighty implications of the issue of presidential immunity require the highest court in the land to weigh in.

“Before a former President faces a federal criminal trial for the first time in our Nation’s history, this Court should decide whether such a trial is permitted by the Constitution.”

The brief raises additional questions regarding the DOJ’s failure to file charges on the actions raised in the allegation for over two years before insisting on its “relentless” demand to take Trump to trial “as promptly as possible.”

“To say the least, the timing is suspicious, and it warrants explanation,” the brief reads. “But the United States has never offered one.”

“[T]iming a criminal prosecution to influence an election is no way to protect democracy, and it is not a legitimate end of law enforcement,” the brief continues.

The brief’s authors suggest President Joe Biden deserves a share of the blame for the appearance of impropriety:

President Biden himself, in November 2022, declared that Donald Trump “will not take power …. I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.” It does not look good, and it looks worse when the prosecution presses every court reviewing President Trump’s constitutional claims to move more quickly. This week, the prosecution’s amicus said the quiet part out loud: “[T]his is not just any case,” argued the Protect Democracy Project, because a stay might “delay the trial until after the 2024 election,” “denying the voters relevant information.”

Trump announced he would seek the nomination on November 15, 2022, but had forecast his intentions in the days leading to Biden’s comments.

Marshall and his coalition of attorneys general argue a slowdown is necessary to ensure both the constitutionality of the process and to assure the public that DOJ is not election meddling.

“Contrary to the prosecution’s haste, the fact that the defendant is a former President is a reason to move carefully—to be sure the prosecution is constitutional from inception. And the fact that the defendant is potentially a future President is even more reason to ensure the appearance and reality of fairness.”

Joining Alabama are Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The application is United States v. Trump, No. 23A745 in the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Bradley Jaye is a Capitol Hill Correspondent for Breitbart News. Follow him on X/Twitter at @BradleyAJaye.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.